CPSA-FL Exam Dumps - ISAQB Certified Professional for Software Architecture -Foundation Level

The performance of a system often competes with its:

• Flexibility (A) - True1
• Memory usage (B) - True1
• On-time completion of the project C - False
• Adaptability (D) - True1
• Usability (E) - True1
• Security (F) - True1
• Testability (G) - True

In system design, performance trade-offs are a critical consideration. Here’s an explanation of how each listed aspect competes with system performance:

• Flexibility (A): Systems designed for high performance may be less flexible because they are optimized for specific tasks or conditions1.
• Memory Usage (B): High-performance systems may require more memory to store data and instructions for rapid access, which can be at odds with limited memory resources1.
• On-time Completion of the Project ©: While performance considerations can impact project timelines, they do not inherently compete with the on-time completion of a project.
• Adaptability (D): Systems that need to perform well under varying conditions may sacrifice adaptability, as they are tightly coupled with their performance optimizations1.
• Usability (E): Sometimes, the pursuit of performance can lead to complex user interfaces or workflows, affecting usability negatively1.
• Security (F): Security measures can introduce additional processing and checks, potentially slowing down system performance1.
• Testability (G): High-performance systems may be harder to test due to their complexity and the need for specialized testing environments or tools1.

These trade-offs highlight the importance of balancing different system attributes to meet the overall goals and constraints of a project.

References:

• CodingDrills article on Trade-Offs in System Design1

The principles that apply to testing include:A. In general, exhaustive testing is not possible. - It is widely recognized in software testing that it is not feasible to test every possible input or state of a software application due to the vast number of variations and combinations, especially in complex systems.B. Where many errors exist, more errors are usually hidden. - This principle, often referred to as the pesticide paradox in software testing, suggests that discovering numerous bugs in a specific area of the software often indicates the presence of additional, less obvious bugs.

A) CorrectB) IncorrectC) CorrectD) CorrectE) IncorrectF) Incorrect

The concept of coupling between building blocks is crucial in software architecture, and the iSAQB® SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE – FOUNDATION LEVEL provides guidance on this topic. Here’s an analysis of the statements based on the curriculum:

A) A high degree of coupling of a building block reduces its reusability: This is correct. High coupling means that a building block is heavily dependent on other components, which can limit its ability to be reused in different contexts1.

B) Low coupling of a building block improves the ability to meet functional requirements: This statement is incorrect. While low coupling can contribute to a more maintainable and flexible architecture, it does not directly improve the ability to meet functional requirements1.

C) Low cohesion often leads to high coupling: This is correct. Cohesion refers to how closely related the responsibilities of a module are. Low cohesion can result in modules that perform a wide range of actions, which often leads to higher coupling with many other modules1.

D) Loose coupling often leads to less effort for making changes: This is correct. Loose coupling allows for easier modification of a system with minimal impact on other components, thus reducing the effort required for changes1.

E) For call dependencies, the degree of coupling is independent of the direction of the call: This statement is incorrect. The degree of coupling can be affected by the direction of the call, as it determines which module controls the interaction1.

F) In object-oriented programming languages, inheritance reduces coupling: This statement is incorrect. Inheritance can actually increase coupling because it creates a direct dependency between the superclass and the subclass1.

These insights are aligned with the principles outlined in the iSAQB® SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE – FOUNDATION LEVEL curriculum, which emphasizes the importance of understanding and managing coupling for effective software architecture design1.

As an architect, you can specify the following characteristics of a black-box building block:

• Compliance with functional requirements (A)
• Compliance with non-functional requirements (B)
• Purpose and/or responsibility (D)
• Method signature of public interfaces (E)
• Data formats of public interfaces (F)

In software architecture, a black-box building block is a component whose internal structure is not exposed to or understood by other components. It is defined only by its provided functionality and the services it offers. Here’s a detailed explanation of each characteristic:

• Compliance with Functional Requirements (A): This refers to the ability of the building block to perform the functions it was designed to do, which are often captured in a functional specification document.
• Compliance with Non-functional Requirements (B): These are criteria that can be used to judge the operation of a system, rather than specific behaviors. This includes requirements related to scalability, performance, security, and reliability.
• Purpose and/or Responsibility (D): This defines the role the building block plays in the overall system architecture, including its responsibilities and the services it provides.
• Method Signature of Public Interfaces (E): The method signature defines the interface that other components can use to interact with the building block. It includes the method name, parameters, and return type.
• Data Formats of Public Interfaces (F): This specifies the format and structure of the data that is accepted or returned by the building block’s public interfaces.

These characteristics are essential for ensuring that the building block can be effectively integrated into a larger system and interact with other components as expected.

References:

• Bass, L., Clements, P., & Kazman, R. (2012). Software Architecture in Practice (3rd ed.). Addison-Wesley Professional.
• Martin, R. C. (2003). Agile Software Development: Principles, Patterns, and Practices. Prentice Hall.
• Fowler, M. (2002). Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture. Addison-Wesley.